Simoes E, Boukamp K, Mayer E D, Schmahl F W
Kompetenz-Centrum Qualitätssicherung/Qualitätsmanagement beim Medizinischen Dienst der Krankenversicherung Baden-Württemberg, Lahr.
Gesundheitswesen. 2004 Jun;66(6):370-9. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-813230.
AIMS: Internationally, the implementation of diagnosis-related group systems has underlined the importance of quality assurance and improvement in health care systems. Support is expected by various concepts based on different theories and traditions. Published experience and knowledge of other countries with long-standing DRG systems and data in literature are studied to see whether there is an evidence-based impact of quality assurance and quality improvement on health care systems. METHODS: Relevant data was searched for in the Cochrane-database, the INAHTA-databases DARE, NHSEED and HTA, in DIMDI and the Medline-database of the NIH as well as generally in the internet, addressing the different countries. RESULTS: Several tools of quality assurance and quality improvement like accreditation, evidence-based medicine and guidelines exist in most of the 18 countries studied. Some of them, such as registries and audits, have marked national characteristics. Similar problems in provision of health care are reported internationally. There is broad consensus as to the aspects to be addressed in quality improvement concepts. Though international consensus on effective organization and methods of external assessment is growing there is only limited evidence for efficiency and general applicability of the different tools. Their cost impact, too, has not undergone systematic evaluation. Procedures like feedback strategies and reflection have been identified as having the potenzial to change the practice of health care professionals on a local level, but evidence for system-related impact is missing. Above all, for all concepts of quality improvement there is no real evidence of clinical benefit in the sense of better patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: None of the various tools for quality improvement in health care proves superior so far. It remains unclear which tool suits best for which intended improvement and in which context. Although quality improvement as a strategy meets with wide approval and appears to be a correct health policy, it remains doubtful whether it really improves clinical outcome and patient-centred health care. Public health research should address these questions. New concepts (e. g. integrating different tools of quality assurance and improvement or DMP systems) need evaluation prior to their broad implementation. Social medicine is called upon to mediate between the consented health care aims of society and medicine.
目的:在国际上,诊断相关分组系统的实施凸显了医疗保健系统中质量保证和质量改进的重要性。基于不同理论和传统的各种概念有望提供支持。研究其他拥有长期诊断相关分组系统的国家已发表的经验和知识以及文献中的数据,以查看质量保证和质量改进对医疗保健系统是否存在基于证据的影响。 方法:在考克兰数据库、INAHTA数据库DARE、NHSEED和HTA、DIMDI以及美国国立医学图书馆的Medline数据库中,以及在互联网上广泛搜索不同国家的相关数据。 结果:在所研究的18个国家中的大多数国家,存在几种质量保证和质量改进工具,如认证、循证医学和指南。其中一些工具,如登记册和审计,具有明显的国家特色。国际上报告了医疗保健提供方面的类似问题。在质量改进概念中需要解决的方面存在广泛共识。尽管国际上对有效组织和外部评估方法的共识在不断增加,但不同工具的效率和普遍适用性的证据有限。它们的成本影响也未经过系统评估。反馈策略和反思等程序已被确定有可能在地方层面改变医疗保健专业人员的做法,但缺乏与系统相关影响的证据。最重要的是,对于所有质量改进概念,从更好的患者结果意义上讲,没有真正的临床益处证据。 结论:到目前为止,医疗保健质量改进的各种工具都没有被证明更优越。目前尚不清楚哪种工具最适合哪种预期的改进以及在何种背景下使用。尽管质量改进作为一项策略得到广泛认可,并且似乎是一项正确的卫生政策,但它是否真的能改善临床结果和以患者为中心的医疗保健仍值得怀疑。公共卫生研究应解决这些问题。新的概念(例如整合不同的质量保证和改进工具或疾病管理计划系统)在广泛实施之前需要进行评估。社会医学需要在社会和医学共同认可的医疗保健目标之间进行协调。
Eur J Health Econ. 2008-11
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008-12
Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 2000-10